Sunday, April 3, 2011

Earthquake region + nuclear power: a dangerous game in Japan

As Japanese mothers constantly warn their children, "ABONAI!" (which means dangerous). Japan has become far too reliant on a highly dangerous source of energy.

Japan has 54 active nuclear reactors, with a number of others planned or under construction. Nuclear energy is a strategic imperative in Japan, since the country heavily depends on imported fuel. Compare that to 104 nuclear plants in the U.S. (10 million square miles), 32 in Russia (6 million square miles), 19 in the UK (242,900 square miles), and 18 in Canada (10 million square miles). At 58 active plants, only France (640,000 square miles) is close to Japan (378,000 square miles) regarding the number of plants vs. square footage.

It's too soon to say how the support of nuclear energy in Japan will change given the current catastrophe, but in 2005, an International Atomic Energy Agency survey showed that "only one in five people in Japan considered nuclear power safe enough to justify new plant construction." However, in the same survey, 61 percent supported the current nuclear program while only 15 percent feel nuclear power is too dangerous and that all the plants in Japan should be shut down. This oppostion to the current nuclear program was the lowest of all the countries surveyed second to South Korea. The current situation has many in Japan wondering whether plants near them could be at risk.

In spite of what's going on in Japan, many (even some environmentalists and the White House) still support nuclear energy. It's baffling to me that so many could support something with such high risks.

My company has become well known for cleaning up after nuclear power plants. Clearly, the cleanup is important...but I've always been deeply uncomfortable with the association. You wouldn't find me volunteering to go work in the Tri-Cities. Even without a nuclear meltdown, workers in the vicinity of nuclear plants face increased risk for cancer and other health problems. And of course nuclear energy always begs the question of what kind of legacy we are leaving for our children?

It amazes me that this has not been a wakeup call for the world!

3 comments:

  1. Hey Marie,
    Great post, interesting to see these facts laid out. I wonder about my exposure since as kid we swam in the Columbia River downstream of Hanford in the 1960s and 70s when there were apparently releases into the river. Oh well.
    Glad at least that's the only functioning facility in our region considering our risk factors for massive earthquakes!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes...interesting to look back on so much of what we did as kids and wonder how it affected our future health. And I agree with you--I'm very glad Trojan is no longer operational.

    ReplyDelete
  3. USA Radiation Plume Maps

    I am working on a new site nuclearpowerdanger.com I have created some radioactive plume maps based solely on wind. Working on more specific map methodology.

    http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/sitemap-nuclear-power-plant-plumes-25mi.php

    These are existing plumes of radiation caused by "normal" releases.

    My methodology is outlined here

    http://www.nuclearpowerdanger.com/plume-maps/methodology.php

    Jorn

    ReplyDelete

There was an error in this gadget